One of the qualities that attracted Republican primary voters in Delaware to Christine O'Donnell, as one of them told CNN, was that she was "one of us." That means, an ordinary American just trying to get along in today's hard times, as opposed to those out-of-touch fat-cat politicians.
If I read my history book right, the Founding Fathers were not ordinary folks. As a rule, they were well-educated, wealthy landowners -- in other word, the elite. If you consider the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution works of genius, well, genii are a pretty rare breed. None of them was one of us.
Getting back to Ms. O'Donnell, how "one of us" is she? Setting aside her admitted dabbling in witchcraft (does that fall under "girls will be girls"?), what about this mishandling of campaign funds to make personal ends meet? Does that fall under, well, times are tough, and we all have to play a few creative money games to get by?
Campaign funds aren't exactly public money, but pretty close. The amounts that appear to have been misused by O'Donnell seem trivial in comparison to the public funds that may be wasted -- or stolen -- in Washington on a daily basis, but the Bible talks about the need to be "faithful over a few things" before an individual is made "ruler over many." And wasn't honor one of the Christian virtues touted at Glenn Beck's rally?
Do the people of Delaware -- or other states, for that matter -- really prefer candidates who see virtue in dodging legitimate questions, or flat-out walking away from cameras, when they're stumped for answers? If so, they will get exactly the representation they deserve in November -- and so will the rest of us, if we don't get out and vote.
There, now I've said it.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
What You Don't Know
How many of those who bought their homes in a quiet residential area of San Bruno knew that they were on top of a 30-inch natural gas transmission line that would someday blow up and obliterate much of their neighborhood? Do you know what's underneath your feet right now?
It's called infrastructure, and it makes much of what happens in our lives work. This kind of infrastructure is ugly. It's best when it's invisible, and when it's working the way it should, we don't even know it's there. We flush a toilet, and the business we just did is carried out of our lives by a system invisible to most of us. It's, uh, not our business anymore. It just disappears--unless, of course, there's a sewer backup or something. In Christchurch, New Zealand, a 7-point earthquake heavily damaged infrastructure, making toilets unflushable and water undrinkable. All of a sudden, the residents had to think about things they never spent much time thinking about before.
A number of years ago, I remember a big to-do in a Southern California city where I worked about a truck that was going to be passing through the area on a nearby freeway. As I recall, it was carrying nuclear fuel rods. Local officials were all steamed up about it. Quite frankly, I don't remember what happened, but I think the truck passed through without vaporizing any cities along the way.
A big fuss was made about that shipment, because we knew ahead of time it was coming. But how many thousand gallons of unknown unpleasantness pass through the area unannounced on the same freeway every day? And how about the railroad? I remember a train wreck in that area involving a tanker car that had some unpronounceable chemical on it. Fortunately, it didn't leak. Had it done so, 25,000 people would have had to be evacuated immediately. But freight trains carrying nasty stuff travel the same route daily, without incident. We’re surrounded by potential danger, whether we think about it or not -- but it almost always stays potential.
This doesn't relieve those who operate the trucks, trains and pipelines from maintaining them and government from seeing to it that the maintenance is done. The bottom line is, we seem to need this unpronounceable stuff somewhere in our lives, even though we don't know what it is or how we use it. But after a while, things in the system that deliver them call attention to themselves and require repair or replacement -- and more often, of course, as they age.
I guess that's why we have skin. If we didn't, we'd have to look at a lot of less-than-photogenic parts of the human body -- yucky unless you enjoyed dissecting frogs in biology class. We don't have to know what those parts are or where they are -- we just expect them to work, silently and invisibly, if at all possible.
But is there such a thing as too silent and too invisible?
It's called infrastructure, and it makes much of what happens in our lives work. This kind of infrastructure is ugly. It's best when it's invisible, and when it's working the way it should, we don't even know it's there. We flush a toilet, and the business we just did is carried out of our lives by a system invisible to most of us. It's, uh, not our business anymore. It just disappears--unless, of course, there's a sewer backup or something. In Christchurch, New Zealand, a 7-point earthquake heavily damaged infrastructure, making toilets unflushable and water undrinkable. All of a sudden, the residents had to think about things they never spent much time thinking about before.
A number of years ago, I remember a big to-do in a Southern California city where I worked about a truck that was going to be passing through the area on a nearby freeway. As I recall, it was carrying nuclear fuel rods. Local officials were all steamed up about it. Quite frankly, I don't remember what happened, but I think the truck passed through without vaporizing any cities along the way.
A big fuss was made about that shipment, because we knew ahead of time it was coming. But how many thousand gallons of unknown unpleasantness pass through the area unannounced on the same freeway every day? And how about the railroad? I remember a train wreck in that area involving a tanker car that had some unpronounceable chemical on it. Fortunately, it didn't leak. Had it done so, 25,000 people would have had to be evacuated immediately. But freight trains carrying nasty stuff travel the same route daily, without incident. We’re surrounded by potential danger, whether we think about it or not -- but it almost always stays potential.
This doesn't relieve those who operate the trucks, trains and pipelines from maintaining them and government from seeing to it that the maintenance is done. The bottom line is, we seem to need this unpronounceable stuff somewhere in our lives, even though we don't know what it is or how we use it. But after a while, things in the system that deliver them call attention to themselves and require repair or replacement -- and more often, of course, as they age.
I guess that's why we have skin. If we didn't, we'd have to look at a lot of less-than-photogenic parts of the human body -- yucky unless you enjoyed dissecting frogs in biology class. We don't have to know what those parts are or where they are -- we just expect them to work, silently and invisibly, if at all possible.
But is there such a thing as too silent and too invisible?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
I'll Be Glad When 9/11's OVER
OK, I, too am angry about Mr. Qu'ran Burner down in Florida. Anyone with a brain -- and a heart -- knows how despicable an act this will be. But I'm tired of hearing about it, and of looking at, and listening to, him. Fine, Anderson Cooper, you sliced him and diced him in your interview. General Petraeus, I'm sure you're right about this act exposing American forces to reprisals. But as we get more and more vocal about this, we're elevating the stature of a crackpot, and giving an act far more attention than it deserves.
We're giving this screwball an enormous amount of power, telling the world that his act will endanger American troops abroad (as if they aren't in enough now). While one part of me wants to put a bag over his head labeled, "This is not a toy," I wonder what would happen if everyone just ignored him? Kinda the way we treat Pat Robertson. I think this guy's 15 minutes are now UP.
We all get sucked into debates about lofty principles, like free speech, freedom of religion, property rights, sensitivity to others, etc. -- but who are the principals (yes, I spelled it right) involved? This preacher's own daughter calls his church a "cult," according to reports, and he's been sued for mismanagement of funds. Before him, though, there's the New York imam of proposed-Islamic-center fame, whose own background is also a little questionable, for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism. At the least, he's not a very good fund-raiser -- or wasn't, until he got all this free publicity.
BTW, I wonder if there would be such a fuss about this mosque thing if, by now, there had been a real memorial at Ground Zero. That site may be hallowed, but right now it's little more than hollowed (I spelled that right, too).
Going forward, the only good news on both of these fronts will be here Sunday--when it’s finally September 12th.
There, now I've daid it.
We're giving this screwball an enormous amount of power, telling the world that his act will endanger American troops abroad (as if they aren't in enough now). While one part of me wants to put a bag over his head labeled, "This is not a toy," I wonder what would happen if everyone just ignored him? Kinda the way we treat Pat Robertson. I think this guy's 15 minutes are now UP.
We all get sucked into debates about lofty principles, like free speech, freedom of religion, property rights, sensitivity to others, etc. -- but who are the principals (yes, I spelled it right) involved? This preacher's own daughter calls his church a "cult," according to reports, and he's been sued for mismanagement of funds. Before him, though, there's the New York imam of proposed-Islamic-center fame, whose own background is also a little questionable, for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism. At the least, he's not a very good fund-raiser -- or wasn't, until he got all this free publicity.
BTW, I wonder if there would be such a fuss about this mosque thing if, by now, there had been a real memorial at Ground Zero. That site may be hallowed, but right now it's little more than hollowed (I spelled that right, too).
Going forward, the only good news on both of these fronts will be here Sunday--when it’s finally September 12th.
There, now I've daid it.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Notes From the NZ Quake
I've spent a good part of the last several days listening online to Newstalk ZB's radio news coverage of Christchurch, New Zealand's 7-point earthquake, which occurred early last Saturday morning. Here are a few observations.
Christchurch is New Zealand's second-largest city, with a population of about 400,000. The earthquake's epicenter was about 20 miles to the west. An estimated 100,000 homes in the area were damaged. The city's central business district, where 89 buildings were damaged, was closed off. The city's tallest building, a seven-story structure built in 1906 and used for offices, will have to be demolished. Other historic buildings, some dating back to the middle 19th century, sustained damage, including the city's historic cathedral.
The quake knocked out power, phone service, and water. While the first two were restored fairly quickly, area residents were warned to boil water because of damage to sewage facilities, and were also asked to hold off on flushing toilets. Those who didn't take this advice came down with gastroenteritis.
Liquefaction occurred. This involves water pushed up from below ground and turning the surface into jelly. This shifts pipes and other underground infrastructure, and when the soil hardens again after the quake, that's where they are. It could be months or even years to rebuild those systems.
Remarkably, no one died and relatively few were injured, but aftershocks in the 5-point range continued to occur right through Tuesday, and nerves are now frayed. Few have been able to sleep. Some people can't take it and have left the area. Folks in other parts of New Zealand have opened their homes to Christchurch residents to give them a little peace -- especially the children.
I heard that there were offers of financial help from all over the world, to which the New Zealanders have said politely, thank you, but we can take care of ourselves.
The incumbent mayor of Christchurch, Bob Parker, was facing a stiff re-election challenge in October. He was trailing his challenger in the polls. But he has performed so well as a community leader during this disaster that one radio commentator suggested that the election was "over" and that the challenger should "find a garage and go park it." If you perform well in a crisis, no one can beat you.
The quake is still getting a good deal of coverage from the Newstalk ZB radio network. If you're interested, here's the link:
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/streaming/newstalkzb-streaming.asp
Christchurch is New Zealand's second-largest city, with a population of about 400,000. The earthquake's epicenter was about 20 miles to the west. An estimated 100,000 homes in the area were damaged. The city's central business district, where 89 buildings were damaged, was closed off. The city's tallest building, a seven-story structure built in 1906 and used for offices, will have to be demolished. Other historic buildings, some dating back to the middle 19th century, sustained damage, including the city's historic cathedral.
The quake knocked out power, phone service, and water. While the first two were restored fairly quickly, area residents were warned to boil water because of damage to sewage facilities, and were also asked to hold off on flushing toilets. Those who didn't take this advice came down with gastroenteritis.
Liquefaction occurred. This involves water pushed up from below ground and turning the surface into jelly. This shifts pipes and other underground infrastructure, and when the soil hardens again after the quake, that's where they are. It could be months or even years to rebuild those systems.
Remarkably, no one died and relatively few were injured, but aftershocks in the 5-point range continued to occur right through Tuesday, and nerves are now frayed. Few have been able to sleep. Some people can't take it and have left the area. Folks in other parts of New Zealand have opened their homes to Christchurch residents to give them a little peace -- especially the children.
I heard that there were offers of financial help from all over the world, to which the New Zealanders have said politely, thank you, but we can take care of ourselves.
The incumbent mayor of Christchurch, Bob Parker, was facing a stiff re-election challenge in October. He was trailing his challenger in the polls. But he has performed so well as a community leader during this disaster that one radio commentator suggested that the election was "over" and that the challenger should "find a garage and go park it." If you perform well in a crisis, no one can beat you.
The quake is still getting a good deal of coverage from the Newstalk ZB radio network. If you're interested, here's the link:
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/streaming/newstalkzb-streaming.asp
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
What About Pakistan?
The phenomenon of what I call selective compassion has always interested me. Americans and others fell all over themselves to help the Haitians after January's earthquake. The world responded after the tidal wade swept through South Asia a few years ago. But here's Pakistan, which has experienced a truly cataclysmic flood that has displaced millions of people throughout much of the country and more or less wiped out much of its agriculture. The U.N. reported that 90,000 children were in immediate danger of death. But how much reporting have we seen about it here? Has anyone put on a telethon for those people? Why don't we care?
Is it geography? Pakistan is the other side of the world, after all, not like Haiti. Is it "disaster fatigue?" Possibly. But I'm not sure either of those explains it. I think it's because it's Pakistan, next door to where we've been fighting a war, and we're not quite sure whether those people are really our friends.
List this one under Mike's impossible solutions to modern problems: We have 90,000 troops already in that region. Too bad we can't move a substantial number of them into Pakistan to help out those flood victims, though I guess we’ve sent a few. If theTaliban do a better job of helping out, whose side do you think the people in that country are going to be on?
I know, I know, that's not what we're over there for, and of course, the Pakistanis probably wouldn't care for the idea of U.S. troops on their soil. But I like to oversimplify complicated situations -- please forgive me.
Is it geography? Pakistan is the other side of the world, after all, not like Haiti. Is it "disaster fatigue?" Possibly. But I'm not sure either of those explains it. I think it's because it's Pakistan, next door to where we've been fighting a war, and we're not quite sure whether those people are really our friends.
List this one under Mike's impossible solutions to modern problems: We have 90,000 troops already in that region. Too bad we can't move a substantial number of them into Pakistan to help out those flood victims, though I guess we’ve sent a few. If theTaliban do a better job of helping out, whose side do you think the people in that country are going to be on?
I know, I know, that's not what we're over there for, and of course, the Pakistanis probably wouldn't care for the idea of U.S. troops on their soil. But I like to oversimplify complicated situations -- please forgive me.
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Mosque Thing, Take Two
It's shocking, some say, that the Muslims want to build an Islamic center a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Now, at least one activist has called for a moratorium on building mosques anywhere in the United States.
I've always operated on the principle that one shouldn't go where one isn't wanted. But I upset a few friends recently when suggesting that on those grounds, there would have been no Rosa Parks, no lunch-counter sit-ins, and perhaps, no civil rights movement.
The idea of an Islamic center near Ground Zero is offensive to many Americans, just the way those lunch-counter sit-ins offended many whites in the Deep South back in the 1950s and '60s. Not the same thing at all, some of you will say. Think of the 9/11 victims' families! It's just another liberal appeasement. But how liberal an idea is private property?
To be honest, I don't really want an Islamic center near Ground Zero, either. If I were advising those behind this project, I'd beg them to put it somewhere else, if for no other reason than to defuse this controversy. But the law doesn't require sensitivity to anyone's feelings--or even wisdom.
Most terrorists that we're concerned about lately seem to be Muslims, but only a minority of Muslims are terrorists. Do we object to locating a Catholic church near a park where children play because some priests are pedophiles?
Keep extrapolating from forbidding the building of mosques, and where do you end up? A new crusade against Islam? If you'll excuse me for a minute, I have to dig out my history book, but as I recall, the last one didn't go all that well for the Crusaders.
There, now I've said it.
I've always operated on the principle that one shouldn't go where one isn't wanted. But I upset a few friends recently when suggesting that on those grounds, there would have been no Rosa Parks, no lunch-counter sit-ins, and perhaps, no civil rights movement.
The idea of an Islamic center near Ground Zero is offensive to many Americans, just the way those lunch-counter sit-ins offended many whites in the Deep South back in the 1950s and '60s. Not the same thing at all, some of you will say. Think of the 9/11 victims' families! It's just another liberal appeasement. But how liberal an idea is private property?
To be honest, I don't really want an Islamic center near Ground Zero, either. If I were advising those behind this project, I'd beg them to put it somewhere else, if for no other reason than to defuse this controversy. But the law doesn't require sensitivity to anyone's feelings--or even wisdom.
Most terrorists that we're concerned about lately seem to be Muslims, but only a minority of Muslims are terrorists. Do we object to locating a Catholic church near a park where children play because some priests are pedophiles?
Keep extrapolating from forbidding the building of mosques, and where do you end up? A new crusade against Islam? If you'll excuse me for a minute, I have to dig out my history book, but as I recall, the last one didn't go all that well for the Crusaders.
There, now I've said it.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Unwanted Guests
When I heard about the Islamic center proposed near Ground Zero, my first impression was: Why are people so dumb as to insist on going places they're not wanted?
My second impression was, well, with that attitude, there probably would have been no Rosa Parks, sit-ins at lunch counters, or the civil rights movement in general.
There, now I've said it.
My second impression was, well, with that attitude, there probably would have been no Rosa Parks, sit-ins at lunch counters, or the civil rights movement in general.
There, now I've said it.
Friday, August 13, 2010
The M Word (repeat)
To paraphrase the old Universal Pictures slogan from the 1930s, "A Good Blog Is Worth Repeating." This one goes back to Oct. 13, 2008, before the passage of California's Proposition 8. Reposting is about not having anything new to say -- but on this subject, I don't:
The M Word
The debate over same-sex marriage could be ended very easily by rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, if you don’t mind the Biblical reference. Just remove the word “marriage” from the law.
You may or may not accept the premise that a certain percentage of human beings are just wired gay, which I do, seeing as how that seems to be the case in mammals generally. But in the end, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a hardware or software issue, or even what Miss California thinks.
Your local county clerk would issue licenses for domestic partnership (or whatever you want to call it) ONLY, and these would have the full legal status that marriage has now. There would be no government-performed ceremonies (including judicial ones), so the religious or philosophical objections of clerk’s personnel or other officials would have no bearing – it simply would be none of their business.
In many religions, marriage is a sacrament, and that is its proper status. Churches and other religious or quasi-religious institutions should be free to perform gay marriage ceremonies, or not, and if marriage had no legal status, there would be no opportunity for lawsuits over this issue.
This all comes under the heading of my impossible solutions to modern problems, although I heard that someone is mounting a California initiative with very similar provisions. But frankly, I’m tired of listening to this debate. Boycotting a business that supported Proposition 8, in the middle of a recession, makes no sense. And is a straight marriage that lasts six months “better” than a gay marriage between two committed partners that lasts 20 years? Will gay unions really undermine the family unit as we know it? We should be celebrating and reinforcing the commitment, not the ceremony.
If we’re really committed to the separation of church and state, removing the word “marriage,” with all its emotional and spiritual accoutrements, from our legal codes would be a great place to start.
There, now I've said it.
The M Word
The debate over same-sex marriage could be ended very easily by rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, if you don’t mind the Biblical reference. Just remove the word “marriage” from the law.
You may or may not accept the premise that a certain percentage of human beings are just wired gay, which I do, seeing as how that seems to be the case in mammals generally. But in the end, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a hardware or software issue, or even what Miss California thinks.
Your local county clerk would issue licenses for domestic partnership (or whatever you want to call it) ONLY, and these would have the full legal status that marriage has now. There would be no government-performed ceremonies (including judicial ones), so the religious or philosophical objections of clerk’s personnel or other officials would have no bearing – it simply would be none of their business.
In many religions, marriage is a sacrament, and that is its proper status. Churches and other religious or quasi-religious institutions should be free to perform gay marriage ceremonies, or not, and if marriage had no legal status, there would be no opportunity for lawsuits over this issue.
This all comes under the heading of my impossible solutions to modern problems, although I heard that someone is mounting a California initiative with very similar provisions. But frankly, I’m tired of listening to this debate. Boycotting a business that supported Proposition 8, in the middle of a recession, makes no sense. And is a straight marriage that lasts six months “better” than a gay marriage between two committed partners that lasts 20 years? Will gay unions really undermine the family unit as we know it? We should be celebrating and reinforcing the commitment, not the ceremony.
If we’re really committed to the separation of church and state, removing the word “marriage,” with all its emotional and spiritual accoutrements, from our legal codes would be a great place to start.
There, now I've said it.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The Devil Makes Us Do It
We can't live with him and we can't live without him. THE DEVIL, that is. Let's face it. As Americans, we have this vague sense of unease unless there's a DEVIL to kick around.
Get thee behind me, Hitler! Stalin! Mao! Manson! Nixon! Khomeini! Saddam! Osama! Madoff! And now, Hayward! (taking the pressure off Obama).
Doesn't it feel good to find someone we can all get mad at simultaneously? Republicans, Democrats, everybody? It's THE DEVIL!
Did you watch the coverage of Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, appearing before the congressional committee Thursday? On the top right of your screen, an angry member of Congress. On the lower right, Tony Hayward. On the lower center, the BP well spewing oil at 18,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf. And on the left panel, a pelican covered with oil, dissolving into the slow crawl of the mug shots of the 11 oil rig workers killed in the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Hate doesn't get any better than this.
What do these congressional hearings accomplish? Do we learn anything new? Of course not. But we all need to vent, and our representatives vent for us. At least this time, they're representing us.
Thank you, Tony. You don't realize what a service you are performing for the national psyche. You are THE DEVIL, and we need you.
Only do me a favor. Stop referring to the disaster as "the accident." It wasn't. From the reporting I've seen and heard, there were plenty of warnings about the potential of a disaster that BP deliberately chose to ignore. It was no accident.
Beyond all this, we may have to ask ourselves, what are we going to do without you?
Get thee behind me, Hitler! Stalin! Mao! Manson! Nixon! Khomeini! Saddam! Osama! Madoff! And now, Hayward! (taking the pressure off Obama).
Doesn't it feel good to find someone we can all get mad at simultaneously? Republicans, Democrats, everybody? It's THE DEVIL!
Did you watch the coverage of Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, appearing before the congressional committee Thursday? On the top right of your screen, an angry member of Congress. On the lower right, Tony Hayward. On the lower center, the BP well spewing oil at 18,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf. And on the left panel, a pelican covered with oil, dissolving into the slow crawl of the mug shots of the 11 oil rig workers killed in the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Hate doesn't get any better than this.
What do these congressional hearings accomplish? Do we learn anything new? Of course not. But we all need to vent, and our representatives vent for us. At least this time, they're representing us.
Thank you, Tony. You don't realize what a service you are performing for the national psyche. You are THE DEVIL, and we need you.
Only do me a favor. Stop referring to the disaster as "the accident." It wasn't. From the reporting I've seen and heard, there were plenty of warnings about the potential of a disaster that BP deliberately chose to ignore. It was no accident.
Beyond all this, we may have to ask ourselves, what are we going to do without you?
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Too Many Ringy-Dingys
Those of you who consider campaign signs to be blight on the landscape at least have a choice. If you really hate them, you can alter your drive-to-work route to avoid them. But there's no escape from robo-calls.
We're California Republicans in our house, and there were some hot contests, of course, in the primary. Meg started her calls first -- seemed like it was at the end of April. And it seemed like once a day. Steve was late with his barrage, but once they started, it was daily. Just in case we got tired of hearing their voices, then all their endorsers chimed in with their recorded messages.
It didn't stop there. All the local officeholders did it, too. The coroner is not one you usually want to get a phone call from, but there he was, and of course, his opponent. The retiring treasurer/tax collector told us to vote for his assistant.
My favorites were the ones from candidates inviting us to join in on a teleconference in progress. It would have been nice if they had called before the thing started. What's up with that?
For those who know our phone number, we almost never answer the phone live anymore, so during campaign season it just means half a dozen or more extra messages per day piling up on the answering machine. So I was busy with the Delete button -- except one time.
Sarah Palin called, urging me to vote for Carly Fiorina. I kept that one for a while so other members of the family could hear it. Sarah generally has kind of an annoying voice, but we were struck by her giddy enthusiasm in boosting Carly. It reminded us of someone, and it finally came to us who.
A few years ago, we stayed at the Disneyland Hotel, and had left a wake-up call. It was the recorded voice of none other than Mickey himself. "It's gonna be a great day," Mickey bubbled, "So let's…get…started!"
Anyway, thanks for the call, Sarah, bye-bye now! (DELETE).
We're California Republicans in our house, and there were some hot contests, of course, in the primary. Meg started her calls first -- seemed like it was at the end of April. And it seemed like once a day. Steve was late with his barrage, but once they started, it was daily. Just in case we got tired of hearing their voices, then all their endorsers chimed in with their recorded messages.
It didn't stop there. All the local officeholders did it, too. The coroner is not one you usually want to get a phone call from, but there he was, and of course, his opponent. The retiring treasurer/tax collector told us to vote for his assistant.
My favorites were the ones from candidates inviting us to join in on a teleconference in progress. It would have been nice if they had called before the thing started. What's up with that?
For those who know our phone number, we almost never answer the phone live anymore, so during campaign season it just means half a dozen or more extra messages per day piling up on the answering machine. So I was busy with the Delete button -- except one time.
Sarah Palin called, urging me to vote for Carly Fiorina. I kept that one for a while so other members of the family could hear it. Sarah generally has kind of an annoying voice, but we were struck by her giddy enthusiasm in boosting Carly. It reminded us of someone, and it finally came to us who.
A few years ago, we stayed at the Disneyland Hotel, and had left a wake-up call. It was the recorded voice of none other than Mickey himself. "It's gonna be a great day," Mickey bubbled, "So let's…get…started!"
Anyway, thanks for the call, Sarah, bye-bye now! (DELETE).
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
No Fail-Safe for Human Beings
Amid all the finger-pointing spawned by the Gulf oil disaster, there's one simple fact that's crystal clear. It was a human failure, not a technological or mechanical one, that's to blame.
If we're to believe 60 Minutes, there was clear warning of a problem weeks before the oil rig blew up, when a gasket on the rig's blowout preventer was damaged. But the warnings were ignored, apparently because BP, which was in awful bloody hurry to get drilling going, took control of how things were going to be done.
I suppose you could make the argument that all technical failures are human failures, since the technology is created by humans. But this isn't quite one of those situations where some engineer used faulty calculation accidentally. This involved a loud, in-your-face warning which was ignored. Why? To maximize profits and minimize losses? To get a bonus? To strut around at a stockholder's meeting?
It's a given that our legacy methods of generating energy involve risk. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a lot more harm can be caused by a problem on an oil-drilling rig or an ocean-going tanker, or in a coal mine or a nuclear power plant, than anything that could happen with windmills or solar panels. And even if human beings behave perfectly, there are always earthquake and hurricanes, etc.
But there is no protection against disaster if profit or status is going to trump safety, and if those we entrust to regulate our riskiest endeavors don't do their jobs. The fact is, the vast majority of drilling rigs, tankers, coal mines and nuclear plants work just fine. But there is no technological safeguard, no mechanical backup yet devised, that can protect us against laziness, greed, or excess ambition.
If we're to believe 60 Minutes, there was clear warning of a problem weeks before the oil rig blew up, when a gasket on the rig's blowout preventer was damaged. But the warnings were ignored, apparently because BP, which was in awful bloody hurry to get drilling going, took control of how things were going to be done.
I suppose you could make the argument that all technical failures are human failures, since the technology is created by humans. But this isn't quite one of those situations where some engineer used faulty calculation accidentally. This involved a loud, in-your-face warning which was ignored. Why? To maximize profits and minimize losses? To get a bonus? To strut around at a stockholder's meeting?
It's a given that our legacy methods of generating energy involve risk. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a lot more harm can be caused by a problem on an oil-drilling rig or an ocean-going tanker, or in a coal mine or a nuclear power plant, than anything that could happen with windmills or solar panels. And even if human beings behave perfectly, there are always earthquake and hurricanes, etc.
But there is no protection against disaster if profit or status is going to trump safety, and if those we entrust to regulate our riskiest endeavors don't do their jobs. The fact is, the vast majority of drilling rigs, tankers, coal mines and nuclear plants work just fine. But there is no technological safeguard, no mechanical backup yet devised, that can protect us against laziness, greed, or excess ambition.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Maybe Arnold's Right
California's "governator" has made no secret of the fact that he would love to run for President, if the law allowed it. Our Constitution, of course, doesn't, according to standard interpretations of the 14th Amendment. . He wasn't born here. In the case of Barack Obama, the Birthers just won't let go of their claim that he really wasn't born here, either, and has no legal right to be President.
Even if Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President, I probably wouldn't vote for him, but I wish he could anyway. From what I read, the constitutional provision barring such a thing dates back to Alexander Hamilton. In this nation's infancy, there was a real fear that we could fall under the domination of a foreign power, and the birth requirement was a link in the chain of defense.
But that was then, as they say, and this is now. Millions of immigrants have made our country what it is today without trying to take it over in behalf of a foreign power, because our system has allowed them to prosper. As for domination by foreign powers, well, someday, at the rate we're going, we may have to turn over the keys to China or India. But that's a whole 'nuther animal.
Personally, I've had it up to here with people who think that simply because they were born here and speak English, it makes them better than those who weren't or don't. Your birth is something you have absolutely no control over -- so how can you take credit for it? As for English, if that's what you were raised with, there's not much more credit you can claim for that.
The fact is, if most of us who were born here had to take a citizenship test, we'd fail miserably. Immigrants who have taken the steps to become citizens, like TV late-night host Craig Ferguson, for example, or our governor, have demonstrated a commitment to this country that most of us don't have to.
I am all in favor of immigration reform to come up with a system that's well-defined and realistically enforceable. As for the presidential issue, I'm all in favor of a residency requirement -- even a long one -- for naturalized citizens who want to run for President. But this "born here" part of the Constitution, while it's a nice tradition, has outlived its usefulness. And Birthers, don't we have more important things to argue about right now?
Even if Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President, I probably wouldn't vote for him, but I wish he could anyway. From what I read, the constitutional provision barring such a thing dates back to Alexander Hamilton. In this nation's infancy, there was a real fear that we could fall under the domination of a foreign power, and the birth requirement was a link in the chain of defense.
But that was then, as they say, and this is now. Millions of immigrants have made our country what it is today without trying to take it over in behalf of a foreign power, because our system has allowed them to prosper. As for domination by foreign powers, well, someday, at the rate we're going, we may have to turn over the keys to China or India. But that's a whole 'nuther animal.
Personally, I've had it up to here with people who think that simply because they were born here and speak English, it makes them better than those who weren't or don't. Your birth is something you have absolutely no control over -- so how can you take credit for it? As for English, if that's what you were raised with, there's not much more credit you can claim for that.
The fact is, if most of us who were born here had to take a citizenship test, we'd fail miserably. Immigrants who have taken the steps to become citizens, like TV late-night host Craig Ferguson, for example, or our governor, have demonstrated a commitment to this country that most of us don't have to.
I am all in favor of immigration reform to come up with a system that's well-defined and realistically enforceable. As for the presidential issue, I'm all in favor of a residency requirement -- even a long one -- for naturalized citizens who want to run for President. But this "born here" part of the Constitution, while it's a nice tradition, has outlived its usefulness. And Birthers, don't we have more important things to argue about right now?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Hail Mary Passes
OK, let's talk first about what we agree on: BP and its key contractors are responsible for what will go down as one of the greatest environmental disasters of the past 50 years. They will pay for it. Heads will roll.
While some pundits are busy bashing BP for the disaster -- which the company richly deserves -- they're also bashing the company for the desperate measures it's taking to try to deal with the oil leak in the short term. So the big dome didn't work because of ice crystals, and the shredded-tire thing may not work, either. But unless these pundits have a brighter idea, they shouldn't interfere with Hail Mary passes. What are those oil executives supposed to do? Shoot themselves? How would that stop the leak?
There is plenty of time later for finger-pointing, and it may not stop with the oil companies. The government agency that's supposed to be regulating this industry is plagued with conflicts of interest. Still another reason for the Tea Party to hate government. The regulators don't regulate. Oil rigs in other parts of the world are safer because greater safeguards are demanded of them.
And, of course, if you want to look at the bigger picture, what's being done about our unsupportable thirst for oil? Our government ignored the wake-up call of some 35 years ago, the Arab oil embargo. But so did the American consumer. We all failed to push for change, which would have occurred if it were demanded by sufficient numbers.
So whether it's via the Virgin or voodoo, let the eee-vil companies do what they can -- unless one of the rest of us has a solution.
While some pundits are busy bashing BP for the disaster -- which the company richly deserves -- they're also bashing the company for the desperate measures it's taking to try to deal with the oil leak in the short term. So the big dome didn't work because of ice crystals, and the shredded-tire thing may not work, either. But unless these pundits have a brighter idea, they shouldn't interfere with Hail Mary passes. What are those oil executives supposed to do? Shoot themselves? How would that stop the leak?
There is plenty of time later for finger-pointing, and it may not stop with the oil companies. The government agency that's supposed to be regulating this industry is plagued with conflicts of interest. Still another reason for the Tea Party to hate government. The regulators don't regulate. Oil rigs in other parts of the world are safer because greater safeguards are demanded of them.
And, of course, if you want to look at the bigger picture, what's being done about our unsupportable thirst for oil? Our government ignored the wake-up call of some 35 years ago, the Arab oil embargo. But so did the American consumer. We all failed to push for change, which would have occurred if it were demanded by sufficient numbers.
So whether it's via the Virgin or voodoo, let the eee-vil companies do what they can -- unless one of the rest of us has a solution.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Oil's Three Mile Island
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may have been one of those unlikely accidents waiting to happen, but it did. I don't know about you, but I had absolutely no idea the sources of oil these rigs tap into can be a mile or more below the surface of the ocean. A mile or more. Think of the undersea pressures -- and the risk. You think something might go wrong with something like that? But in spite of all the drilling that's done in the world these accidents are pretty rare. The question of course is, are they rare enough?
Accidents happen at nuclear power plants, too, but the oil industry seems to have those beat. There just seems to be a lot more exposure for oil rigs and ocean-going tankers. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said something interesting this week on Bill Maher's HBO show. Many more American lives are at risk protecting our oil sources in the Middle East than in the effort to exploit sources of oil here at home.
Well, that's fine. But there's something to be said for these alternate energy sources we could have been exploiting since the 1970s. Take solar power. What's the worst thing that could happen? Someone could get a really nasty sunburn. Or wind power -- a lot of toupees could get blown off. OK, you could be scalded by geothermal steam. But catastrophic damage? The potential just doesn't seem to be there.
Maybe some of these environmental wacko green ideas aren't so ridiculous after all.
Accidents happen at nuclear power plants, too, but the oil industry seems to have those beat. There just seems to be a lot more exposure for oil rigs and ocean-going tankers. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said something interesting this week on Bill Maher's HBO show. Many more American lives are at risk protecting our oil sources in the Middle East than in the effort to exploit sources of oil here at home.
Well, that's fine. But there's something to be said for these alternate energy sources we could have been exploiting since the 1970s. Take solar power. What's the worst thing that could happen? Someone could get a really nasty sunburn. Or wind power -- a lot of toupees could get blown off. OK, you could be scalded by geothermal steam. But catastrophic damage? The potential just doesn't seem to be there.
Maybe some of these environmental wacko green ideas aren't so ridiculous after all.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Thank You, Arizona
Don't get too upset at the folks in Arizona. They've just decided to deal with something that's been ignored. If a tooth is bothering you and dental care is unavailable, the pain may eventually drive you to cruder home remedies, like pliers.
OK, maybe we haven't exactly ignored the immigration issue. We've talked about it a lot, sort of like health care. That was an aching tooth that got dental attention. Many of us didn't approve of the procedure, but at least we took a whack at it.
I've often said that if I were elected to office, the first plank in my platform would be to reduce the tax code to a single 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. For the immigration code, I'd be willing to go up to three pages.
Of course, it will be longer than that. But at whatever length, it probably won't be something everyone believes is fair. Those who played by the rules will be upset about the breaks that will likely have to be given to those who didn't. But if the rules weren't enforced in the first place, who is to blame, exactly? Sometimes the lack of enforcement was lazy. More often it was deliberate. But it doesn't really matter. The rule book needs revision, and we'd better get on it.
Maybe we should be saying, "Thank you, Arizona," for moving this issue to the front burner. Something tells me that cap-and-trade can wait. I have no scientific evidence for saying that, but immigration law would now appear to be a much higher priority. We'd better start asking ourselves how many more Arizonas we want to see out there.
OK, maybe we haven't exactly ignored the immigration issue. We've talked about it a lot, sort of like health care. That was an aching tooth that got dental attention. Many of us didn't approve of the procedure, but at least we took a whack at it.
I've often said that if I were elected to office, the first plank in my platform would be to reduce the tax code to a single 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. For the immigration code, I'd be willing to go up to three pages.
Of course, it will be longer than that. But at whatever length, it probably won't be something everyone believes is fair. Those who played by the rules will be upset about the breaks that will likely have to be given to those who didn't. But if the rules weren't enforced in the first place, who is to blame, exactly? Sometimes the lack of enforcement was lazy. More often it was deliberate. But it doesn't really matter. The rule book needs revision, and we'd better get on it.
Maybe we should be saying, "Thank you, Arizona," for moving this issue to the front burner. Something tells me that cap-and-trade can wait. I have no scientific evidence for saying that, but immigration law would now appear to be a much higher priority. We'd better start asking ourselves how many more Arizonas we want to see out there.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Calling Out the Militia
Are we really going down this road again? Arming ourselves against a government takeover? Waiting for the black helicopters? Listening to Art Bell reruns?
Concern has been raised about a violent backlash against Democratic members of Congress who voted for the health care bill. I think some of it is a little overblown. So Sarah Palin has a map with crosshairs on it targeting districts of vulnerable Democrats in November contests. So what do you expect from Annie Oakley? And then some Congressman held up a picture of Nancy Pelosi in front of a crowd outside the Capitol and made slapping gestures. The CNN reporter was shocked. But what kind of behavior are we expecting? A certain amount of this, in my view, comes with the territory, and we have to consider the source.
That said, am I not concerned about the revival of the wacko faction? You betcha! One talk-show host -- nobody I ever heard of until this week -- wants angry people to throw things through the district office windows of offending members of Congress. And some have obliged. A number of representatives report that they have received death threats. Because of health care? I guess it takes a little more to get my rile meter that high.
I heard the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center interviewed on NPR's "Fresh Air" today. This organization studies hate groups. He said that several factors have combined to enrage to violent levels the unhinged, or barely hinged. The election of a black President. Illegal immigration. The bailouts. Gay rights and the removal of God from our school system. And now, Obamacare.
So yeah, those who speak to audiences do have a responsibility to watch what they say these days. The population of those with perspective and a sense of humor is shrinking faster than the Antarctic ice shelves.
Concern has been raised about a violent backlash against Democratic members of Congress who voted for the health care bill. I think some of it is a little overblown. So Sarah Palin has a map with crosshairs on it targeting districts of vulnerable Democrats in November contests. So what do you expect from Annie Oakley? And then some Congressman held up a picture of Nancy Pelosi in front of a crowd outside the Capitol and made slapping gestures. The CNN reporter was shocked. But what kind of behavior are we expecting? A certain amount of this, in my view, comes with the territory, and we have to consider the source.
That said, am I not concerned about the revival of the wacko faction? You betcha! One talk-show host -- nobody I ever heard of until this week -- wants angry people to throw things through the district office windows of offending members of Congress. And some have obliged. A number of representatives report that they have received death threats. Because of health care? I guess it takes a little more to get my rile meter that high.
I heard the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center interviewed on NPR's "Fresh Air" today. This organization studies hate groups. He said that several factors have combined to enrage to violent levels the unhinged, or barely hinged. The election of a black President. Illegal immigration. The bailouts. Gay rights and the removal of God from our school system. And now, Obamacare.
So yeah, those who speak to audiences do have a responsibility to watch what they say these days. The population of those with perspective and a sense of humor is shrinking faster than the Antarctic ice shelves.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Enemy of the Good
OK, at first I supported health care reform. Then I said, scrap the bill and start over. I don't like some of the things that are in the bill. I don't like the fact that important stuff has been left out of it. I think the President handled the campaign badly. The method by which this thing is being pushed through Congress stinks. But are we ever going to deal with this issue, if not now?
I just think back to last year when my wife and I were trying to get individual insurance. We were turned down by the same company through which I'd been insured by my former employer because of a non-life-threatening physical condition. Lucky for us -- it's the same company that now wants to raise rates 39 percent. We did find somewhat affordable insurance with another company. But during the process, as we were questioned about our medical backgrounds, we were made to feel like we were trying to cover up a criminal past. Sure, there's freedom of choice: the insurance companies get to choose those who then have the privilege of paying their premiums. As I've said before, if you don't see something wrong with that picture, your eyesight's a lot worse than mine.
The basic business model of insurance seems to be founded on the avoidance of paying claims. If I'm wrong about this, please tell me how.
It upsets me that this bill doesn't effectively deal with tort reform. Because of it, individual doctors and hospital corporations are forced to load up on -- uh, insurance to protect themselves -- and who pays the premiums?
Now it may seem like a counter-intuitive argument, but the law requires you to carry at least minimal auto insurance coverage if you plan to operate a motor vehicle on a public street or highway, so what's wrong with requiring everyone to have health insurance? You may be 27 years old and think you're immortal -- but suppose you're hurt or stricken with some expensive illness out of the blue. Who pays for your care, if you can't? Doesn't enlarging the risk pool minimize the pain for everyone in the end? Isn't that what insurance should really be about?
As for the screwed-up system by which this bill has moved through Congress, well, it follows one of my universal principles: if there's a system available to you to get what you want, you're almost certainly going to use it -- regardless of whether someone else without access to that system thinks it's fair. But don't feel badly for them: they have access to another system unavailable to you, and they'll be working it.
So if the Democrats successfully work the system on this issue, chalk one up for them. If not, can we count on the Republicans to address health care, or health insurance reform, and are we as voters going to keep congressional feet to the fire on this? I should live so long.
I just think back to last year when my wife and I were trying to get individual insurance. We were turned down by the same company through which I'd been insured by my former employer because of a non-life-threatening physical condition. Lucky for us -- it's the same company that now wants to raise rates 39 percent. We did find somewhat affordable insurance with another company. But during the process, as we were questioned about our medical backgrounds, we were made to feel like we were trying to cover up a criminal past. Sure, there's freedom of choice: the insurance companies get to choose those who then have the privilege of paying their premiums. As I've said before, if you don't see something wrong with that picture, your eyesight's a lot worse than mine.
The basic business model of insurance seems to be founded on the avoidance of paying claims. If I'm wrong about this, please tell me how.
It upsets me that this bill doesn't effectively deal with tort reform. Because of it, individual doctors and hospital corporations are forced to load up on -- uh, insurance to protect themselves -- and who pays the premiums?
Now it may seem like a counter-intuitive argument, but the law requires you to carry at least minimal auto insurance coverage if you plan to operate a motor vehicle on a public street or highway, so what's wrong with requiring everyone to have health insurance? You may be 27 years old and think you're immortal -- but suppose you're hurt or stricken with some expensive illness out of the blue. Who pays for your care, if you can't? Doesn't enlarging the risk pool minimize the pain for everyone in the end? Isn't that what insurance should really be about?
As for the screwed-up system by which this bill has moved through Congress, well, it follows one of my universal principles: if there's a system available to you to get what you want, you're almost certainly going to use it -- regardless of whether someone else without access to that system thinks it's fair. But don't feel badly for them: they have access to another system unavailable to you, and they'll be working it.
So if the Democrats successfully work the system on this issue, chalk one up for them. If not, can we count on the Republicans to address health care, or health insurance reform, and are we as voters going to keep congressional feet to the fire on this? I should live so long.
Monday, March 1, 2010
There's a "There" There
It's difficult to find anything positive to say after the 8.8 earthquake catastrophe in Chile. But I do have one.
I think it's really interesting the way U.S. correspondents -- or at least the English-speaking journalists -- based in that country are suddenly the go-to reporters on this story. Of course, these are people who likely live in Chile and just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time.
If you heard them on the air before, they were usually buried deep in the newscast somewhere. And since it was South America, they were probably talking about a military coup or a war criminal's arrest or some company nailed for despoiling a rain forest. But now, these nobodies are providing the precious details of the top international story. They're stars. You're going to remember their names. It has always amazed me how the world generally ignores an entire continent. Africa gets a lot more respect than South America, which isn't close to anything we really care about.
It takes a lot to make us care about South America. Argentina had to start a war with Britain. Colombia had to supply us with illegal drugs. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela had to kiss up to Castro and Iran and threaten to cut off our oil. Brazil, which has achieved about the highest level of energy independence of any country on the globe, doesn't get nearly as much attention, except at Carnival time.
Oh, by the way, I think we're supposed to pronounce Chile like "Chillay" if we want to be in the ball park -- not like the spice or the restaurant chain. "Sheelay" is probably the most accurate rendition. Just thought you should know, in case you find yourself talking about it.
I think it's really interesting the way U.S. correspondents -- or at least the English-speaking journalists -- based in that country are suddenly the go-to reporters on this story. Of course, these are people who likely live in Chile and just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time.
If you heard them on the air before, they were usually buried deep in the newscast somewhere. And since it was South America, they were probably talking about a military coup or a war criminal's arrest or some company nailed for despoiling a rain forest. But now, these nobodies are providing the precious details of the top international story. They're stars. You're going to remember their names. It has always amazed me how the world generally ignores an entire continent. Africa gets a lot more respect than South America, which isn't close to anything we really care about.
It takes a lot to make us care about South America. Argentina had to start a war with Britain. Colombia had to supply us with illegal drugs. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela had to kiss up to Castro and Iran and threaten to cut off our oil. Brazil, which has achieved about the highest level of energy independence of any country on the globe, doesn't get nearly as much attention, except at Carnival time.
Oh, by the way, I think we're supposed to pronounce Chile like "Chillay" if we want to be in the ball park -- not like the spice or the restaurant chain. "Sheelay" is probably the most accurate rendition. Just thought you should know, in case you find yourself talking about it.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
How's That Again?
I'm glad to hear that Dick Cheney is "resting comfortably" in the hospital following his heart problem. But how else does one rest? Uncomfortably?
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Toothless Tiger
No, this isn't another post about you-know-who. It's about the concept of regulation, and I thought it appropriate, with the new credit card law taking effect this week.
The law does a few good things, like requiring notice of interest rate hikes, restricting abusive fees and controlling the availability of cards to college-age kids. But there is no cap on interest rates, and there's nothing to prevent the issuers from arbitrarily lowering -- or even raising -- the credit lines attached to those cards.
Personally, I think credit card agreements should be more contractual instruments. You agree with the issuer on terms up front for a period, say, up to five years, in which your credit line is fixed and they can't raise your interest rates beyond a certain level above prime, unless you show a pattern of delinquency. We should live so long.
What really needs attention, as I've observed many times before, is the FICO score system (note the four-letter acronym beginning with "f."). If you pay off -- and cancel -- your credit cards tomorrow, you're in danger of lowering your credit score. So the experts tell you, pay the card off -- not too quickly -- and leave the account open. But the card issuers may choose to cut your credit line anyway (which also lowers your score). So you can't even say, take this card and shove it.
But I digress -- back to the bigger issue. I like the idea of small government, too, but we expect government to provide, at the very least, for our safety and security. To me, this means, by extension, protecting us from becoming victims. This requires REGULATION. You hate what the big banks are doing to you, but is government on your side? After being blamed for causing a crisis rivaling the Great Depression, have financial institutions, Wall Street or the insurance industry been required to change a single practice (other than the few outlined in the credit card law)? The FDA is supposed to be regulating the pharmaceutical industry; is it effectively preventing harmful drugs from making it to market? In general, government is much more effective at paperwork (or electronic file) generation than doing the most significant part of its job.
Sorry folks, the free market doesn't work without rules of the road. The President and Congress need not only to provide us with reasonable (what a devil of a word that is!) rules, but also to provide a government large enough -- and dedicated to -- enforcing those rules. Can you blame the Tea Party people for being fed up with a government that just isn't there for them? If it were, size wouldn't matter.
The law does a few good things, like requiring notice of interest rate hikes, restricting abusive fees and controlling the availability of cards to college-age kids. But there is no cap on interest rates, and there's nothing to prevent the issuers from arbitrarily lowering -- or even raising -- the credit lines attached to those cards.
Personally, I think credit card agreements should be more contractual instruments. You agree with the issuer on terms up front for a period, say, up to five years, in which your credit line is fixed and they can't raise your interest rates beyond a certain level above prime, unless you show a pattern of delinquency. We should live so long.
What really needs attention, as I've observed many times before, is the FICO score system (note the four-letter acronym beginning with "f."). If you pay off -- and cancel -- your credit cards tomorrow, you're in danger of lowering your credit score. So the experts tell you, pay the card off -- not too quickly -- and leave the account open. But the card issuers may choose to cut your credit line anyway (which also lowers your score). So you can't even say, take this card and shove it.
But I digress -- back to the bigger issue. I like the idea of small government, too, but we expect government to provide, at the very least, for our safety and security. To me, this means, by extension, protecting us from becoming victims. This requires REGULATION. You hate what the big banks are doing to you, but is government on your side? After being blamed for causing a crisis rivaling the Great Depression, have financial institutions, Wall Street or the insurance industry been required to change a single practice (other than the few outlined in the credit card law)? The FDA is supposed to be regulating the pharmaceutical industry; is it effectively preventing harmful drugs from making it to market? In general, government is much more effective at paperwork (or electronic file) generation than doing the most significant part of its job.
Sorry folks, the free market doesn't work without rules of the road. The President and Congress need not only to provide us with reasonable (what a devil of a word that is!) rules, but also to provide a government large enough -- and dedicated to -- enforcing those rules. Can you blame the Tea Party people for being fed up with a government that just isn't there for them? If it were, size wouldn't matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)